Nasa lies about Mars atmosphere.Helicopter to fly in Mars" 0.6Percent of earths atmosphere"

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

I think you should give up with maths.
Maths seems to have given up with you.

a reply to: Bicent

i simply CBA explaining basic physics to a person with internet access in 2019

read this

all 11 pages - appologies for that

then bullet point exactly which bits you disagree with

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Zigbee is an IEEE 802.15.4-based specification for a suite of high-level communication protocols used to create personal area networks with small, low-power digital radios, such as for home automation, medical device data collection, and other low-power low-bandwidth needs, designed for small scale projects which need wireless connection. Hence, Zigbee is a low-power, low data rate, and close proximity (i.e., personal area) wireless ad hoc network.

en.wikipedia.org...

A hardwired data transfer protocol.

ETA- Or the whitepaper has a misprint? It says it has coms with Earth and I bet it does

The whitepaper says radio link, not direct comms.

Anyway, the main point we were discussing was if the chopper needs to return to the rover and if you read the white paper it looks like it does not have to as long as it stays within 1000 meters.

a reply to: Phage

Some of the earliest satellites/space probes had transmitters using only fraction s of watt power

the Vanguard "Grapefruit" satellite had transmitters of 10 and 5 milliwatts - the 5 milliwatt using some of earliest solar
cells

Pioneer 4 lunar probe used 100 milliwatt and was received at several lunar distances ( 1 million KM, 600,000 miles) when battery died

The key is the antenna - space probes use a parabolic high gain antenna to focus radio transmission into tight beam


All in all he seems to have the right idea

GET TO THE CHOPPA …….!!!

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: galadofwarthethird

It's all about the Reynolds number.
A man sized airplane or rotorcraft on Mars will be a problem.

Yes and no.

Yes, the Reynolds number is a very important factor determining the performance of airfoil sections on very small Mars airplanes and helicopters. Airfoil sections with low Reynolds numbers on wings, tails, propellers, and rotors basically can't develop lift coefficients as high as airfoil sections on aircraft with larger Reynolds numbers. That usually means that small Mars airplanes and helicopters have to have proportionately larger wing/rotor blade areas compared to their larger counterparts and/or maintain higher flight speed and tip speed. But there are a couple of finer points that need to be considered, also. At normal Reynolds numbers that you would associate with a Cessna or anything larger, when you want to increase the wing area, you would normally increase the span because that results in a higher L/D and more efficiency. With low Reynolds number designs, if you maintain the chord length the same and increase the span, you still can't pull high lift coefficients because the section Reynolds number is based on the chord length. On the other hand, if you keep the wing span constant and increase the chord length you can pull higher lift coefficients and gain performance that way. This is why when you run optimizations codes on very small aircraft (i.e., UAVs), you often end up with short, wide wings. That's why small insects like bees and flies end up that way also.

Another consideration that usually only applies to Mars airplanes that are deployed mid-air from parachutes is the fact that even normal sized wings and tails that would have relatively large Reynolds numbers at their design flight speed may be required to operate at extremely low Reynolds numbers before they pick up speed. One test that I worked on dropped a Mars airplane prototype, nose down, from a balloon at 100,000 feet and had to immediately begin a pull up maneuver to avoid overspeeding. The first 10 seconds of flight began right on the hairy edge of the wings and elevator surfaces stalling, before the Reynolds number increased to the point where we had a normal amount of performance margin. The curve of maximum lift coefficient attainable vs Reynolds number is very nonlinear when you are near the zero point.

No, there's no particular reason a human-sized (or larger) Mars airplane or rotorcraft can't be designed, as long as there's some way to deliver it to Mars. As the aircraft gets larger, the Reynolds number sensitivity goes away and the vehicle becomes a pretty normal design problem. Many of us in the Mars airplane community think that once human exploration of Mars begins, heavier-than-air craft will be used to help exploration pretty much the same way it is used on Earth. That could include robotic drones for collecting the equivalent of ISR and VTOL air taxis and bush planes. Once upon a time I briefly worked with the guy who did the aerodynamic design of the 2020 microcomputer on a concept for a stowable rotor system to land very heavy (> 10 ton) payloads on the Martian surface. There didn't seem to be any reason it wouldn't work.

Aerodynamics is the same everywhere in the Solar System.

a reply to: 1947boomer

"Once upon a time I briefly worked with the guy who did the aerodynamic design of the 2020 microcomputer on a concept for a stowable rotor system to land very heavy (> 10 ton) payloads on the Martian surface. There didn't seem to be any reason it wouldn't work."

You do understand that 10 ton payload was no concept. It was for either:

Portable nuclear reactor like the ones they use to power underground nuclear powered tunnel boring machines
A living quarter module
Mining equipment (drill which goes straight down to find water)
Electric systems or oxygen generators
Food and resupply for astronauts

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Those modules also are 100% surely already on Mars but its a secret.

You can also be proud of yourself, the work you have done for Nasa is probably at heavy use now with the hands of the secret space astronauts
a reply to: 1947boomer

originally posted by: SpaceBoyOnEarth
a reply to: carewemust

Thats what im trying to tell you.

The 0.6 is a lie.

You are probably right but don't go thinking we will be able to breathe. Our Earth bodies would be starved of O2.

a reply to: Justoneman

Yea. But, Co2 can be converted to O2. There could be large Co2 to O2 converters on mars. We could also have the following:

We also could have a small 4 wheel autonomous minicar which has resupply gas bottles and a compressor for refilling. It could follow us autonomously while we do space discovery or walk on Marses surface.

It could look like this, draw it in paint:

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

In the beginning of back in the day!



Not to many secrets to worry about then.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

So a couple of things:

The rotors are different in design from normal chopper rotors so that could and should factor in

You calculations do not take into account the efficiencies fo the rotor

and lastly, they are not saying it will fly rather that they want to see what happens (from the JPL website)

As a technology demonstrator, the Mars Helicopter carries no science instruments. Its purpose is to confirm that powered flight in the tenuous Martian atmosphere (which has 1% the density of Earth's) is possible and that it can be controlled from Earth over large interplanetary distances. But the helicopter also carries a camera capable of providing high-resolution color images to further demonstrate the vehicle's potential for documenting the Red Planet.www.jpl.nasa.gov...

Its literally just a lift system with nothing else

a reply to: FredT


Yes. I am not an idiot. I have had 2 coaxial rc hoppers and well ok I was an idiot actually the first time I flew one. I had inserted larger blades and replaced normal engines with brushless ones and I got it into air and it fall directly in a small pond the size of 5 x 5 feet.

But ah yes.

Ofcourse you can make blades big and efficient. But the engine wont move it fast enough at that point to move it in something where no material basically exists.
If Mars really had 6mbar atmosphere they wouldnt be going there like this. They would then spend the resources on moon. Dead rocks a dead rock and Mars aint one. So theres a special reason they go to Mars. Nasa might be idiots at lying but they arent idiots on why they go somewhere.

You could take a 5 horsepower motor boat engine, replace propeller with a 1000 horsepower propeller, and think that now it goes faster because propeller is bigger. No the propeller is too heavy, once it starts to spin it wont spin fast because the 5hp just isnt enough.

These are just excuses nasa says when it claims the rotors are so efficient and big. No you then need a bigger engine too. But then you need bigger rotors again, to get that bigger engine and its power source into the air. Heres a picture I made:

Truth is that Nasa think all people are idiots when they now try to publicly come out with this chopper thing. They dont even care anymore.

picture I made:

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

Helicopter rotors are comparatively very light, especially that small. They only have to lift 1.5 pounds, and are spinning much faster than rotors on earth lifting much heavier helicopters.

Yes there's a special reason to go to Mars. It's called exploration. Going to the moon and no farther doesn't make sense.

a reply to: Zaphod58

They spin faster, but they dont make more lift because of that. Well actually they do but if you beleive nasas lie they dont. If pressure is 6mbar, theres less air resistance since less material so they spin faster. But they must spin faster.

But, because Mars has 100-300mbar atmosphere according to my studying, it will fly actually there.

And look at this!


Thats the old Viking photo from 1970. They color corrected it so much that no one could see theres any atmosphere! Clearly there is! Imagine if even one picture of this kind would have been released in 1970, people would have demanded we go there study it!

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

And now photoshop was invented in 1970?

The atmosphere in the original pic is the same thickness in the image as the colour corrected one. Your point?

The apparent thickness of the atmosphere is not the same as how dense it is, and you can't compare it with an image of Earth because the Earth image covers a much bigger area - you're comparing apples and assumed.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Less density, less pressure.

a reply to: SpaceBoyOnEarth

And? This does not change you're misunderstanding of the images you posted.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Photoshopped is a term, the program might have not been back then but I mean edited.

Nasa made a conscious decision to have the photos look orange.